Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC) Member

Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC) Member

Evaluation Form

Academic capacity

Summer 2015

42 W. Madison, 3rd floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: 773-553-1530
Fax: 773-553-1559
www.cps.edu/ons
Name of Reviewer
Name of NAC
Name of Proposed School

Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC) Member Evaluation Form

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for dedicating your time, effort, and expertise to help review proposals for new charter and contract schools submitted in response to the annual New Schools Request for Proposals (RFP). Through your participation in this review process, you will play an integral role in helping determine which proposed schools are recommended for approval to Chicago Public Schools’ (CPS) Board of Education.

EVALUATION STANDARDS & RATINGS

This evaluation form includes the evaluation criteria that you will use to rate the quality of the proposal response for your assigned sections. You will rate each evaluation criterion as “meets” or “does not meet” the standard according to the following guidelines:

Meets the Standard – The response reflects a thorough understanding of key issues and demonstrates the design team’s capacity to implement its plan. It addresses the topics with specific and accurate information, aligns with the mission and goals of the school, and presents a clear, realistic picture of how the school expects to operate.

Does Not Meet the Standard – The response does not demonstrate that the design team has the capacity to implement its plan. The response is incomplete, lacks meaningful detail or otherwise raises significant concerns about the viability of the plan or the applicant’s ability to carry it out.

Review each evaluation criterionin your assigned sections and rate the proposal as “meets” or “does not meet” the standard on that evaluation criterion. Strong responses will include all or most of the characteristics listed underneath the evaluation criterion (if applicable).

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

For each rating, cite evidence from the proposal pertaining to your analysis of the section under the “Strengths” and “Concerns” sections. It is acceptable to rate an evaluation criterion as “meets” the standard overall but still cite some “concerns” in addition to “strengths;” conversely, it is acceptable to rate an evaluation criterion as “does not meet” the standard but also cite “strengths” in addition to “concerns.”

When citing evidence from the proposal, include page numbers for easy reference. If you have additional questions about that section of the proposal after reviewing the materials, include them in the “Key Questions” section.

TWO-TIERED REVIEW

Note that some sections are allowed updates in Tier 2: these sections are identified in the evaluation form as “**May be updated with Tier 2 information”under the evaluation criterion. In these sections, you can choose to provide an initial rating of “meets” or “does not meet”, but may need to update this rating when Tier 2 materials have been received (August 10, 2015) and reviewed. However, you are encouraged to begin to cite evidence and/or include questions for these sections based on your review of the Tier 1 proposal materials.

If you have any questions as you are completing your review, do not hesitate to reach out to your NAC facilitator or Subject Matter Expert (SME) directly.

Domain 1: PARENT AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

Key Question: Has the applicant conducted robust engagement and garnered authentic parent and community support, establishing a strong foundation for opening and operating a school with engaged and empowered families and communities?

**All sub-sections in Domain 1 may be updated with Tier 2 information

Evaluation Criteria / 1.1.a. Targeted Communit(ies): The applicant has developed a nuanced understanding of the targeted communit(ies), informed by conversations with community members and a variety of methods of formal and informal research.
**May be updated with Tier 2 information
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics: /

The applicant identifies the possible location(s) of the proposed school(s) and cites specific street boundaries where the school intends to focus student recruitment efforts, should the school be approved to open.
The applicant provides the requested background information on the proposed target communit(ies) for all of the above metrics.
The history of the targeted community is concise, includes key events from at least the last few decades, and identifies political, economic, demographic, and community-specific trends that are important to understand when seeking to serve students, families, and community members in the targeted communit(ies).
The design team includes and/or has consulted with individuals with close ties to the community to become more familiar with the targeted communit(ies). The design team solicited advice from community members and participated in various meetings, events, and/or volunteer opportunities to help develop an outreach plan.
The proposal explains how the design team received feedback from community members on the existing assets and educational and other support needs within the targeted communit(ies).

Select one and then provide support for the rating(to be selected in Tier 2):

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Evaluation Criteria / 1.1.b. Community Fit: The educational vision for the proposed school has been adapted to reflect the unique assets and needs of the community. The proposal presents a compelling rationale for why the proposed school is a good fit for the community.
**May be updated with Tier 2 information
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics: /

The applicant received feedback from the community early in the process of developing an educational vision for their proposed school and/or determining how to adapt an existing model to meet the unique needs of the community.
The proposal explains how the proposed school(s) would connect with and build upon existing assets in the targeted communit(ies), as well as help meet educational and/or support needs. The description includes a compelling rationale for why the proposed school(s) are a good fit for the communit(ies).

Select one and then provide support for the rating(to be selected in Tier 2):

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Evaluation Criteria / 1.2.a. Evidence of Notifying Key Community Stakeholders: The applicant has conducted multiple methods of outreach. The community is generally aware of the proposed new school. Stakeholders understand how to review the proposal, volunteer to serve on a NAC, and submit public comment.
**May be updated with Tier 2 information
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics: /

The applicant has notified at least an estimated 10 percent of individuals residing within the intended recruitment boundary of the proposed new school, as well as 50 percent of residents, organizations, and businesses located within a four-block radius of the proposed facilit(ies). All notification materials and methods include:
Information on how individuals can provide feedback or ask questions about the proposed school
(If distributed prior to Tier 1 proposal submission) A link to the CPS website where individuals can sign up to serve on Neighborhood Advisory Councils (www.cps.edu/2014NAC)
(If distributed between Tier 1 and 2 proposal submissions) Dates, times, and locations for the NAC Community Forum and Community Public Hearing
A link to the CPS website where proposals will be publicly posted for review (www.cps.edu/2014RFP)
In the proposal narrative and/or an attachment, the applicant provides evidence of having conducted all three methods of outreach to all of the aldermen, state representatives, and state senators in the intended recruitment boundary:
Requesting a meeting (or listing meetings already held)
Attending the elected officials’ ward or district nights
Sending formal notification of the proposed new school
The design team has met with key community organizations, businesses, and leaders from all of the targeted communities within their recruitment boundary to notify them of the proposed school.

Select one and then provide support for the rating(to be selected in Tier 2):

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Evaluation Criteria / 1.2.b. Seeking Community Feedback: Through the process of consulting with community stakeholders, the applicant has continued to adapt the school model to more effectively serve its unique targeted student population.
**May be updated with Tier 2 information
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics: /

The proposal presents evidence that community residents have attended community meetings hosted by the applicant. The community meetings offered attendees the opportunity to provide feedback on the educational vision for the proposed school.
Applicants conducted canvassing and outreach efforts on the ground across the communities within the recruitment boundar(ies) to help refine their educational vision. The strategy for on-the-ground outreach is culturally sensitive, informative, and interactive.
The proposal outlines key pieces of feedback received from different members of the community and explains which pieces of feedback were incorporated into plans for the proposed school, which were not, and why.

Select one and then provide support for the rating(to be selected in Tier 2):

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Evaluation Criteria / 1.3.a. Evidence of Support from Key Community Stakeholders: The evidence of support presents a compelling case that students will choose to attend the school, and that community members believe the school will positively impact the community.
**May be updated with Tier 2 information
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics: /

The proposal describes some of the key supporters and champions of the proposed school in the neighborhood, including parents or caregivers who may choose to enroll their students, and evidences the support with personalized letters outlining why the community members believe the proposed school will be an asset to the community.
The proposal includes a sufficient number of letters of intent to enroll for age-eligible children to comprise at least half of the first-year enrollment capacity.
The proposal cites and attaches any letters of support from elected officials within the recruitment boundary.
There are community-based organizations, businesses, and/or leaders from the targeted communit(ies) within the recruitment boundaries who support the proposed school. The support of each organization is evidenced by a letter outlining the reasons for their support.

Select one and then provide support for the rating(to be selected in Tier 2):

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Evaluation Criteria / 1.3.b. Risk Factors: The proposal openly acknowledges opposition to the proposed school.
**May be updated with Tier 2 information
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics:

Select one and then provide support for the rating(to be selected in Tier 2):

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Evaluation Criteria / 1.4.a. Continued Outreach Prior to School Opening: The applicant's continued outreach and engagement strategy leading up to school opening will help ensure that the school successfully opens on time, ready to serve students and the community on day one.
**May be updated with Tier 2 information
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics:

Select one and then provide support for the rating(to be selected in Tier 2):

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Evaluation Criteria / 1.4.b. Vision for Long-Term Collaboration with Parents and the Community: The proposal presents a clear vision for how the school will develop a mutually beneficial relationship with the community, supported by ongoing dialogue and partnerships.
**May be updated with Tier 2 information
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics: /

As required by Illinois Charter Schools Law (105 ILCS 5/27A-7 a10), the proposal describes the nature and extent of parent and community involvement in the governance and operation of the charter school. If the governance plan does not include community member(s) and parent(s) on the Board, there are clear mechanism(s) for parents and community members to provide feedback and/or express an objection or concern to the school and Board on an ongoing basis.
The applicant has secured partnerships with local community-based organizations, businesses, community groups, institutions of higher education, etc. that will support the students and families it intends to serve across the targeted communit(ies) within the recruitment boundary. These partnerships are evidenced by letters of support outlining the nature of the partnership. If any partnerships are integral to implementing the school model, the applicant includes a draft contract with specific scope of services outlined. The proposal cites who will be responsible for overseeing community partnerships.
The proposal presents a clear vision for how the proposed school will positively contribute to the community, outlining any services, resources, programs, or volunteers that the school will offer to the families of students and/or community members.

Select one and then provide support for the rating(to be selected in Tier 2):

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Domain 2: ACADEMIC CAPACITY

Key Question: Does the applicant have the capacity to open and operate a high-quality school that engages students in a rigorous, well-rounded instructional program and will prepare them for success in college, career, and life?

Evaluation Criteria / 2.1.a. Overview of the Educational Model. The proposal explains who the school will serve; what it will accomplish in measurable terms; and describes the methods it will use to help students achieve defined student outcomes.
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics: /

The mission is succinct, meaningful, reflective of the targeted student population, and consistent with the purposes outlined in the Illinois Charter Schools Law (105 ILCS 5/27A-2(a)(1)(b)). The vision clearly articulates what the school will look like and accomplish in the near term and future, offering concrete examples of anticipated student outcomes. Together, the mission and vision indicate what the school intends to do, for whom, and to what degree, differentiating it from other schools.
The educational philosophy reflects the design team’s core beliefs and priorities for educating the proposed student population and aligns with the school’s mission and vision. The educational philosophy paints a compelling picture of what the school will look like, describing its defining features. The proposal cites research and evidence that the core design elements positively impact academic outcomes with similar student populations.If proposing a Next Generation blended learning model: In addition to meeting the above evaluation criterion, the proposal also provides a compelling rationale for the scope and design of blended learning strategies, which is rooted in the needs of the student population and aligns with the educational philosophy.

Select one and then provide support for the rating:

Top of Form

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Strengths:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Concerns:

Insert evidence here
Insert evidence here

Key questions:

Insert questions here
Insert questions here

Evaluation Criteria / 2.1.b. Students’ Opportunities to Learn and Learning Supports:The proposal cites the systems, programs, and policies that will support the needs of all students and help remove barriers to learning.
A strong response that meets the standard will have all or most of the following characteristics: /

The school culture promotes a positive academic and social environment with high behavioral and academic expectations. The systems and traditions will be implemented on a daily basis to help foster students’ intellectual, social, and emotional development. The proposal specifies who will oversee these efforts.
The age-appropriate college readiness supports will build college awareness and readiness among students. If proposing a high school, the school will support students in applying, enrolling, and persisting in college. The proposal clearly cites who oversees the implementation of college readiness supports and outlines roles that other staff members play in supporting these efforts.
If proposing a high school, the proposal outlines methods for tracking student/alumni college acceptance and persistence rates. The proposal cites who will be responsible for overseeing these efforts.
The anticipated social, emotional, and physical health needs accurately reflect the typical needs of students residing within the recruitment boundary.
The proposed school has specific systems in place to identify and consistently monitor students’ social, emotional, and physical health needs, noting student progress toward non-academic goals. The proposal cites who will be responsible for overseeing these efforts.
The proposed programs, services, and activities reflect the anticipated needs of the student population the school seeks to serve. The school will holistically remove barriers to learning with practices that promote students’ health and safety and social and emotional development.
The proposed school has an intentional strategy for creating a positive school climate. Proposed discipline policies and classroom management strategies promote positive student behavior and help ensure a safe and productive learning environment.
The multi-tiered system of prevention and intervention supports will help foster all students’ behavioral growth, including the general student population and students in need of targeted support. The proposal clearly explains how the prevention and intervention supports will be implemented in the school on a daily basis.
Plans for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of student behavioral interventions include clear benchmarks to determine success. The evaluation of behavioral interventions will assess whether the application of discipline is consistent and fair. Specific members of the staff are responsible for overseeing student discipline and behavioral interventions.
There are plans to clearly and consistently communicate behavior expectations, consequences, and rewards to students and families. Parents are provided with a copy of the Student Code of Conduct and are able to easily access it in the school and/or online.
The proposal includes a comprehensive list of offenses that may result in student suspension or expulsion and outlines the corrective, instructive, and/or restorative responses to misbehavior that will be used prior to the use of exclusionary discipline.
The proposal clearly explains how the school will protect the rights of students with disabilities/impairments in disciplinary actions and proceedings, afford due process for all students, and provide a fair process for students facing expulsion.
The school plans to share information on students' progress with parents or caretakers on an ongoing basis and promote their involvement in their students' education.If proposing a Next Generation blended learning model, any unique requirements for parent involvement are outlined, as well as any responsibilities for supplying technological equipment or support.
The proposal outlines supports that the school will provide for parents and caretakers, who will be responsible for delivering them, and how they will be funded.

Select one and then provide support for the rating: